Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against WhatsApp Group Administrator for Inaction on Abusive Posts. Administrator Not Criminally Liable Under Section 354-A IPC or IT Act for Failure to Remove or Delete Offending Member from Group.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Kishor Tarone, was the administrator of a WhatsApp group. Accused No.1 used filthy language against the non-applicant No.2 (complainant) on the group. The applicant did not remove or delete accused No.1 from the group nor asked him to apologize. Consequently, the applicant was charge-sheeted under sections 354-A(1)(iv), 509, 107 IPC and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The applicant filed a criminal application under section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings. The High Court held that there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless expressly provided by statute. The applicant, as administrator, could not be held liable for the acts of accused No.1 merely for failing to take action. The court noted that the allegations did not make out any offence against the applicant, and continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. The court quashed the charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings against the applicant.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - WhatsApp Group Administrator - Sections 354-A, 509, 107 IPC and Section 67 IT Act, 2000 - The court considered whether an administrator of a WhatsApp group can be prosecuted for offences committed by another member on the group merely because the administrator did not remove or delete the offending member. The court held that there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless a statute specifically provides for it. The administrator cannot be held liable for abetment or for substantive offences under the IPC or IT Act for inaction alone. (Paras 5-8)

B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - The court exercised its inherent powers to quash the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings against the applicant, as the allegations did not disclose any offence against the administrator. The court found that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 9-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a WhatsApp group administrator can be held criminally liable for offences under sections 354-A, 509, 107 IPC and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for not removing or deleting a member who used abusive language against another member on the group.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and quashed the charge-sheet No.26 of 2016 and Regular Criminal Case No.177 of 2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arjuni-Morgaon, District Gondia.

Law Points

  • Criminal liability of WhatsApp group administrator
  • vicarious liability
  • abetment
  • section 354-A IPC
  • section 509 IPC
  • section 107 IPC
  • section 67 IT Act
  • section 482 CrPC
  • inherent powers of High Court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (03) 148

Criminal Application (APL) No. 573 of 2016

2021-03-01

Z.A. Haq and Amit B. Borkar, JJ.

Mr. R.M. Daga for applicant, Mr. T.A. Mirza for non-applicant No.1, Mr. Sanjay A. Bramhe for non-applicant No.2

Kishor S/o Chintaman Tarone

The State of Maharashtra and Mrs. Rachanatai W/o Chameshwarji Gahane

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under section 482 CrPC for quashing of charge-sheet and criminal proceedings.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of charge-sheet No.26 of 2016 and Regular Criminal Case No.177 of 2016 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arjuni-Morgaon.

Filing Reason

The applicant, as WhatsApp group administrator, was charge-sheeted for not removing or deleting a member who used abusive language against the complainant on the group.

Issues

Whether a WhatsApp group administrator can be held criminally liable for offences under sections 354-A, 509, 107 IPC and section 67 IT Act for failing to remove or delete a member who posted abusive content.

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued that there is no vicarious liability in criminal law and that the administrator cannot be held liable for the acts of another member. The non-applicants argued that the administrator had a duty to remove the offending member and his inaction amounts to abetment.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless a statute specifically provides for it. The administrator of a WhatsApp group cannot be held criminally liable for the acts of a member merely for failing to remove or delete the member. The allegations against the administrator did not disclose any offence under sections 354-A, 509, 107 IPC or section 67 IT Act.

Judgment Excerpts

There is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless the statute specifically provides for it. The applicant being administrator of the Whatsapp group cannot be held liable for the acts of accused No.1. The allegations in the charge-sheet do not make out any offence against the applicant.

Procedural History

FIR No.36 of 2016 was registered at Police Station Arjuni-Morgaon for offences under sections 354-A(1)(iv), 509, 107 IPC and section 67 IT Act. Charge-sheet No.26 of 2016 was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arjuni-Morgaon, leading to Regular Criminal Case No.177 of 2016. The applicant filed Criminal Application (APL) No.573 of 2016 under section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge-sheet and proceedings.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 482
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 354-A, 509, 107
  • Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act): 67
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Premium on Staircase and Lift Areas Under D.C. Regulations — Levy at Revised Land Rate Upheld. The court held that the Municipal Corporation can charge premium for exempted FSI areas at the prevailin...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Income Tax Case on Deduction Under Section 80IB for Interest Income from Bill Discounting. Interest received on bill discounting held to be derived from industrial undertaking and eligible for deduction...